[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: on NAT-PT
haven't you checked two of my messages started this thread?
>NAT-PT needs to be revisited:
>It needs to remove the DNS-ALG part in the v6 tov4 case,
if you could do it without changing IPv6-only clients, i'm fine with
that.
>it needs to limit the DOS thread and need to scale better,
>at least as well/bad as NAT.
what kind of DoS?
what kind of scalability differences do you see between v4-v4 NAT and
v6-v4 NAT-PT? i don't see any (except that NAT-PT might potentially
need to support massive number of customers, depending on
configuration - you can balance the load between NAT-PT translation
boxes so it's no issue).
>A new RFC needs to define the tradeoff when to use it
>compare to using dual stack.
itojun